This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

Originally Posted by megaprogman

This is not the argument. The argument is whether private charity can meet the needs of the financially handicapped.

Since you stated that the government can meet the needs of the poor I want you to back up that statement with historical facts. Show me that a government anywhere in the history of the world has removed poverty and met the needs of the poor equally.

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

Since you stated that the government can meet the needs of the poor I want you to back up that statement with historical facts. Show me that a government anywhere in the history of the world has removed poverty and met the needs of the poor equally.

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

OK. I've been following this conversation for a couple of days. This is where it all began:

Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger

That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.

Mega then asked The_Patriot to prove this assertion. The_Patriot then posted a link. I think we need to define one term to determine whether The_Patriot has substantiated his assertion. The term in question is, "keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped," specifically, "keep up". Now, I would define "keep up" as "to match" or "maintain". If this is the case then to prove the assertion that The_Patriot has made, what must be substantiated is that private charities have been able to maintain or match the needs of the financially handicapped. In other words, financial private charity contributions would be equal to the financial needs of the financially handicapped. I do not see substantiation for this from The_Patriot.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

Originally Posted by megaprogman

Show me where I stated that?

When you posited the opposite that what I said was true that is when you took the position that the government can. It's quite simple show me where a government has ended poverty and the poor that was effective and reliable.

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

OK. I've been following this conversation for a couple of days. This is where it all began:

Mega then asked The_Patriot to prove this assertion. The_Patriot then posted a link. I think we need to define one term to determine whether The_Patriot has substantiated his assertion. The term in question is, "keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped," specifically, "keep up". Now, I would define "keep up" as "to match" or "maintain". If this is the case then to prove the assertion that The_Patriot has made, what must be substantiated is that private charities have been able to maintain or match the needs of the financially handicapped. In other words, financial private charity contributions would be equal to the financial needs of the financially handicapped. I do not see substantiation for this from The_Patriot.

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

When you posited the opposite that what I said was true that is when you took the position that the government can. It's quite simple show me where a government has ended poverty and the poor that was effective and reliable.

Where did I posit the opposite? All I did was show your claim to be untrue. Just because I think one thing is not true does not automatically mean I think the opposite is true.

Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

I have and provided data to support it. It's all in the links.

If you mean the link that was in your initial response, there was no data there. Data would be some sort of financial accounting that would show a zero balance when comparing the monies presented by charitable organizations to the money required by the financially handicapped. I saw no link that provided that kind of comprehensive information. If I missed it, please direct me to it.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"